tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post2014505103802918112..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Condon Committee NegatedKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-76847675721172949152021-08-06T10:28:37.759-07:002021-08-06T10:28:37.759-07:00That's because the secrets that become relativ...<i>That's because the secrets that become relatively meaningless, a few decades later, (ie...as you put it, "names of operatives"..."means of intelligence gathering"..."the fact that they are gathering intelligence in the first place")...are eventually deemed, by the powers that be, permissible for release.<br /><br />Yep, as you say, those details, decades later, are "typically meaningless"...and if someone applies an FOIA for the release of files...then what better way to stall them and frustrate them for a few more years, than to release stuff that was irrelevant to that persons investigation. <br /><br />The important secrets outlive the lifespan of the investigators.<br /><br />It's the secrets that remain hidden away that are the issue here.<br />And as we have seen, they can be hidden successfully for decades more than just 70 years.</i>~Paul Young<br /><br />Only problem is: I haven't heard a <b>example</b> of a big time secret that was kept for 70 years. Saying there is one unreleased is meaningless. Also saying it <i>becomes</i> meaningless is contradicting yourself since-by your own logic-no one would keep those secrets anyway once they become meaningless would they? Recall you said earlier: <i>As for secrets being kept secret from pre WW1/Crimean war, etc...what possible reason would there be for those secrets being kept secret?</i><br /><br />You are also (of course) <i>omitting</i> many of the <b>other</b> reasons I gave for keeping this stuff secret.....including the "bureaucratic mentality" with governments. Which is likely in play here. <br /><br />And by the way.....just as a reminder: you are the only person I've heard so far say there is anything of value in files about the Crimean war and so on. Do you see any groups of academics or historical associations jumping up and down and demanding the release of these documents to set the historical record straight on the Crimean War or a WW II ship? Didn't think so.<br /><br />So lets define "significant"......so there is no more haggling over what is/isn't "significant"....or "Earth-shattering" (another term I've used)......my criteria:<br /><br />1. It's got to be something (at release) on the front page of major newspapers for days/weeks. Same with the broadcast media. <br /><br />2. People have got to be talking about it. I mean, you walk into restaurants and so on and you hear frequent conversation on it. <br /><br />3. It impacts people's lives and/or changes/impacts what historians think about a important event.<br /><br />4. Lots of people had to have known about it for 50-70 years (at the point of release) and kept quiet.<br /><br />5. It has to be something PROVEN. Roswell (of course) falls into the unproven category. Nobody is debating if Watergate or the Pentagon papers are real. (We still are with MJ-12.) <br /><br />#4 is very important and demonstrates one (of many) very important differences between a concealed UFO crash and stuff like a sunk WW II ship or the Crimean War. With the latter, we are likely talking something that maybe a handful of people have seen (considering people who are currently alive). And apparently they didn't think it was too important. On the other hand, had there been a UFO crash 70 years ago.....likely thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, engineers, and so on would have seen this information by now. And so far, just about all of them have remained silent. (Unless anyone is foolish enough to believe frauds like Bob Lazar.)<br /><br />Soooo, that is what I am after here. Something big. Needless to say, nothing named so far comes close. About the closest thing I can think of is the identity of Deep Throat. That got a lot of people talking and was all over the media. Even some historians said it altered their perception of Watergate to a degree. But that (of course) doesn't meet my criteria due to the fact that A) it wasn't concealed anywhere close to 50 years, and B) only about 4 people knew the secret. <br /><br />And if you are reading this and thinking: there is no example of what I want.....well, that's the point.09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-66174345862382008802021-07-24T15:52:24.332-07:002021-07-24T15:52:24.332-07:00But "secrets" get cut loose (all the tim...<i>But "secrets" get cut loose (all the time) after 50-70 years.....and they are typically meaningless. I have yet to hear anything named that comes close to something meaningful. There should be a example of this.....and there isn't.</i><br /><br />That's because the secrets that <i>become</i> relatively meaningless, a few decades later, (ie...as you put it, "names of operatives"..."means of intelligence gathering"..."the fact that they are gathering intelligence in the first place")...are eventually deemed, by the powers that be, permissible for release.<br /><br />Yep, as you say, those details, decades later, are "typically meaningless"...and if someone applies an FOIA for the release of files...then what better way to stall them and frustrate them for a few more years, than to release stuff that was irrelevant to that persons investigation. <br /><br />The important secrets outlive the lifespan of the investigators.<br /><br />It's the secrets that remain hidden away that are the issue here.<br />And as we have seen, they can be hidden successfully for decades more than just 70 years.Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-5099499483089317512021-07-19T12:07:36.531-07:002021-07-19T12:07:36.531-07:00"It's the secrets that remain hidden away...<i>"It's the secrets that remain hidden away that are the issue here. And, as we have seen, can remain secret for decades longer than 70 years."</i>~Paul Young<br /><br />But "secrets" get cut loose (all the time) after 50-70 years.....and they are typically meaningless. I have yet to hear anything named that comes close to something meaningful. There should be a example of this.....and there isn't. 09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-10149030677973075052021-07-18T05:01:49.140-07:002021-07-18T05:01:49.140-07:00Organizations like the CIA routinely hide things l...<i>Organizations like the CIA routinely hide things like that to conceal names, means of intelligence gathering,..</i><br /><br />Yep. And they are the sorts of secrets that get released at some stage. <br />It's the secrets that remain hidden away that are the issue here. And, as we have seen, can remain secret for decades longer than 70 years. :-)Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-29517526829531538982021-07-16T12:59:54.488-07:002021-07-16T12:59:54.488-07:00Anonymous..."Organizations like the CIA routi...Anonymous..."<i>Organizations like the CIA routinely hide things like that to conceal names, means of intelligence gathering, the fact they are gathering Intel in the first place and so on. In other cases they are covering up outright wrongdoing (like plotting with the mob to kill Castro or other embarrassing stuff). These things undermine their credibility and can make asking for funding more difficult. To the average person, it's meaningless.....on Capital Hill.....it makes things difficult. Obviously a crashed UFO doesn't quite fall into this category."</i><br /><br />Certainly those types of secrets are <i>amongst</i> those secrets that were released...but the real serious stuff is what has been withheld and kept secret, successfully, for 70, 100, 150 years, and so on. (The "significant" stuff) :-)<br /> <br />Either way...they were secrets that were kept secret for whatever reason. And <b> significant</b> reasons according to the governments that wanted them kept secret. <br /><br />(Once again, you make my argument for me.) :-)<br /><br />As for secrets being kept secret from pre WW1/Crimean war, etc...what possible reason would there be for those secrets being kept secret? :-) They <b> still</b> want "means of gathering intelligence" kept secret? (chuckle)<br /><br />They <b>still</b> want "the fact that they are gathering intel in the first place" , kept secret? (Do you really believe the UK government want secrets from the Crimean War kept secret so that no one can find out that we were gathering "Intel" at the time?<br /> Are you having a laugh?<br /> <br />Well...either way, they've done a good job considering the secret files concerning the Crimean War have now been successfully kept for just under 150 years now, <br /><br />Chuckle. Thanks again, for making my argument, for me. (ie, that secrets can be kept secret for 70 years...and way over.) :-)Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-68657950677832693862021-07-16T10:25:24.508-07:002021-07-16T10:25:24.508-07:00"Believing that secret files are kept secret ..."<i>Believing that secret files are kept secret just to conceal personal information on various agents (or whatever) involved in various cases, doesn't cut the mustard. <br /><br />That previously secret files released have shown up personal details of agents/officers, etc...is certainly the case...HOWEVER...they are just the tidbits to keep the minnows like you happy.<br /><br />It's the files that are still being kept secret that is the issue here. <br />Why would files still secret from as far back as WW1 and Crimean War be kept secret just in order to protect an agents ID?"~Paul Young </i><br /><br />It's the "or whatever" part that you keep missing. (And has been explained.) There are all sorts of reasons....to quote a previous post of mine (on another thread) to you:<br /><br /><i>Organizations like the CIA routinely hide things like that to conceal names, means of intelligence gathering, the fact they are gathering Intel in the first place and so on. In other cases they are covering up outright wrongdoing (like plotting with the mob to kill Castro or other embarrassing stuff). These things undermine their credibility and can make asking for funding more difficult. To the average person, it's meaningless.....on Capital Hill.....it makes things difficult. Obviously a crashed UFO doesn't quite fall into this category."</i>~ME<br /><br />So no, we aren't just talking agent's names here. <br /><br />I would like to add to that the fact that there is a bureaucratic mentality at a lot of these organizations. They don't like even putting out even the most mundane stuff. When the FOIA act passed organizations (like the FBI, CIA, etc) subtly resisted by doing such things as making bad copies, "losing" requests and so on. And when researchers got it....what did they get? Nothing. <br /><br />You really don't understand any of this do you? You don't know anything about Intel, how governments work, and so on. All you've read about is thus UFO stuff. That's ok, it puts you in good company with a lot of people in this field. <br /><br />And by the way, I'm still waiting on you to name <b>any</b> credible person who believes there is some big secret being concealed in some file on the Crimean War or the sinking of a WW II ship. So far, the only person who you have quoted who believes that is.....you. And that's not my idea of a credible person. lol09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-5356257645511410122021-07-15T13:31:28.501-07:002021-07-15T13:31:28.501-07:00Anonymous ,,," What a ridiculous argument. It...Anonymous ,,,"<i> What a ridiculous argument. It's been explained to you numerous times (here and in other threads) why governments conceal documents. It doesn't mean we are talking anything important. (At least to the average person.) </i><br /><br />Sorry but you haven't <i>explained</i> anything at all.<br /> Believing that secret files are kept secret <i>just</i> to conceal personal information on various agents (or whatever) involved in various cases, doesn't cut the mustard. <br /><br />That previously secret files released have shown up personal details of agents/officers, etc...is certainly the case...<i>HOWEVER</i>...they are just the tidbits to keep the minnows like you happy.<br /> <br />It's the files that are <i>still</i> being kept secret that is the issue here. <br />Why would files still secret from as far back as WW1 and Crimean War be kept secret just in order to protect an agents ID? <br />They are kept secret because they obviously have inconvenient truths within them that the government thinks are <b>significant</b> enough to keep secret. <br /><br />I like you...You're a funny guy! :-) (keep trying to wriggle out of your daft statement,,,it's entertaining. :-)Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-13399534006814813142021-07-12T19:23:58.272-07:002021-07-12T19:23:58.272-07:00BTW...let's not forget that not only are pre-W...<i>BTW...let's not forget that not only are pre-WW2 files still locked away but pre-WW1 too. (In fact files from the Crimean War are still locked away under the Official Secrets Act...obviously because they are totally insignificant</i>~Paul Young<br /><br />What a ridiculous argument. It's been explained to you numerous times (here and in other threads) why governments conceal documents. It doesn't mean we are talking anything important. (At least to the average person.) You've been given examples of all sorts of info cut loose that the average person just yawned at. Yet you can name nothing on the other end of the spectrum.<br /><br />Ridiculous isn't the word.....pathetic would be more precise.09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-2728688506326651292021-07-08T23:24:01.024-07:002021-07-08T23:24:01.024-07:00BTW...let's not forget that not only are pre-W...BTW...let's not forget that not only are pre-WW2 files still locked away but pre-WW1 too. (In fact files from the Crimean War are still locked away under the Official Secrets Act...obviously because they are totally <i>insignificant</i> <br /><br />:-)Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6993566950188949742021-07-07T19:28:05.562-07:002021-07-07T19:28:05.562-07:00Lets think about the "logic" we've h...Lets think about the "logic" we've heard from "Paul" here:<br /><br />#1: You have to know who a poster is in order for him to quote a internationally know (and respected) journalist. <br /><br />#2: The fact a government can conceal <i>anything</i>....means they could conceal <i>everything</i>. <br /><br />#3: He still can't name some big secret that was held for more than 50 years. <br /><br />The "logic" of the UFO proponents never ceases to amaze. :)09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-9915739880821367232021-07-07T18:34:06.184-07:002021-07-07T18:34:06.184-07:00Anonymous... "It's pretty much circular r...Anonymous... "<i>It's pretty much circular reasoning. We don't know what is being held secret because they are <b>always</b> successful in keeping secrets?</i> <br /><br />Who said that secrets are "<i><b>always</b></i>" successfully kept? <br /><br />...............<br /><br />Anonymous..."<i>And my point is: they aren't capable of keeping a very big/significant secret like this for very long. And the evidence backs me up on that. The fact you can't name anything (other than meaningless things such as WW II ships and so on) proves my point.</i><br /><br />Sadly for you...You don't get to legislate as to what is, or isn't, a <i>significant</i> secret that needs to be kept hidden away under things like UK's Official Secrets Act.<br />Governments decide...<b>not a minnow like you</b> ...Chuckle.<br /><br />If a Government didn't consider a secret to be <i>significant</i>, then they wouldn't deem<br />it necessary to ensure they are locked away from the publics prying eyes...(ONE case being that of the files concerning the sinking of RMS Lancastria) :-)<br /><br />'''''''''<br />Anonymous..."<i>And by the way, the I-don't-know-because-those-documents-are-secret tripe isn't a acceptable answer.</i><br /><br />Chuckle...It kills you, doesn't it, that the answer to your daft statement that "secrets can't be kept for long periods" is so easily thwarted by the sheer <i><b>fact</b></i> that so many secret files have been locked away for more than 100 years....and despite FOIA requests, you <i><b>STILL</b></i> have no idea what information is in them. :-)<br /><br />It's so entertaining watching you try to come up with a way to argue against such a fundamentally true statement as my, "I-don't-know-because-those-documents-are-secret"<br /> <br />Chuckle :-)Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-58991215142123232522021-07-07T13:28:04.832-07:002021-07-07T13:28:04.832-07:00You allude to being someone who knows about "...<i>You allude to being someone who knows about "intel"... but you post anonymously...therefore we can't assume that anything you say has any substance.</i>~Paul Young<br /><br />If that makes sense to anyone else.....let me know. Maybe Paul has been hittin' the sauce early this evening. :)<br /><br />I quoted a highy regarded journalist.....you are quoting yourself. Everything is YOUR opinion. <br /><br /><i>At least other debunkers who frequent KR's blog (like Lance) ...have the strength of character and the courage of their conviction to post under their real name. </i>~Paul Young<br /><br />I'd sure like to know how anyone can really know anyone's real name on the internet. I could call myself Spiro T. Agnew....and how would you know the difference? Anybody can (obviously) create a google account with any name they wish. It's just another ad hominem from someone who doesn't have a argument.09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-27135233129408234292021-07-06T18:43:27.811-07:002021-07-06T18:43:27.811-07:00Why would you say that files being kept secret ove...<i>Why would you say that files being kept secret over the sinking of RMS Lancastria isn't significant? . It was an incredibly important incident.</i>~Paul Young<br /><br />How so? Explain what was so important about it and what you <i>think</i> is being concealed. The only person I've ever heard say there is some big Earth-shattering secret with this is.....you.<br /><br />And by the way, the <i>I-don't-know-because-those-documents-are-secret</i> tripe isn't a acceptable answer. (Your go to reply. lol)09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-2995457084607123852021-07-06T16:03:56.695-07:002021-07-06T16:03:56.695-07:00There you go again, you halfwit.
You allude to bei...There you go again, you halfwit.<br />You allude to being someone who knows about "intel"... but you post anonymously...therefore we can't assume that anything you say has any substance.<br /><br />As I said, it is more likely that you are a troll posting from your mother's house.,,in your childhood bedroom, wearing your Star Trek pyjamas, as you are a person in the "intel know"<br /><br />At least other debunkers who frequent KR's blog (like Lance) ...have the strength of character and the courage of their conviction to post under their real name. <br /><br />You, however, are the straw-man. Too weak and feeble to even post under your own name. Like I said previously, you hang around websites pretending you are not interested in the content of that site like someone who hangs around the gents pretending that they are actually "straight". <br /><br />But I know the truth. :-)<br /><br />Anyway...how is it that secret files can't be kept secret when pre-WW2 files are still secret?Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-22815073226079458302021-07-05T10:32:49.421-07:002021-07-05T10:32:49.421-07:00You know somebody has lost when they resort to thi...You know somebody has lost when they resort to this personal stuff. (It's like Russ Estes said about a lot of people involved in this stuff: "If you can't trust the messenger.....how can you trust the message?") <br /><br />What is significant? Well, name something. You can't can you? That's the point. <br /><br /><i>Why would you say that files being kept secret over the sinking of RMS Lancastria isn't significant? . It was an incredibly important incident.</i>~Paul Young<br /><br />Why governments don't cut documents loose has been explained to you numerous times. You just don't know enough to counter the point. Haven't read very much about Intel have you? (Did you miss the Randle quote elsewhere in this thread?)<br /><br /><i>As for your being "very familiar" with Washington! LOL</i>~Paul Young<br /><br />Are you even reading what I am posting? WHO said that? Go back and look at who I was quoting. (Hint: it wasn't me.)<br /><br />09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-86990823985226644242021-07-04T14:57:20.093-07:002021-07-04T14:57:20.093-07:00...Incidently, how do you know if a secret fil......Incidently, how do you <i> <b> know </b> </i> if a secret file hasn't got what you laughingly call a <i>significant</i> secret within them!<br /><br />You can't read them, so you can't know...because they are secret! :-)Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-29850106367008721402021-07-04T14:50:57.299-07:002021-07-04T14:50:57.299-07:00Chuckle.
Sadly (for you) what is considered a &qu...Chuckle. <br />Sadly (for you) what is considered a "significant" secret and what isn't, is not up to you.<br /><br /> As for your being "very familiar" with Washington! LOL...and "having secrets in your desk" CHUCKLE...<br /> We all know BS when we hear it and you ooze with the stuff. <br /><br /> You don't even have the courage of your convictions to post under anything other than an anonymous handle...so I expect you're living with mum and sat at your laptop wearing a Star Trek commander's uniform! Chuckle.<br /><br />Anyways...back on topic... Why would you say that files being kept secret over the sinking of RMS Lancastria isn't significant? . It was an incredibly important incident.Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-60846923026129964232021-07-04T11:23:14.253-07:002021-07-04T11:23:14.253-07:00My only point has been that if a government wants ...<i>My only point has been that if a government wants to keep a secret, secret, then they have been proven to be capable of doing that.</i>~Paul Young<br /><br />And my point is: they aren't capable of keeping a very big/significant secret like this for very long. And the evidence backs me up on that. The fact you can't name anything (other than meaningless things such as WW II ships and so on) proves my point. <br /><br /><i>Watching you trying to wriggle out of your daft statement that secrets can't be kept for 70 years is most entertaining..</i>~Paul Young<br /><br />Another strawman. That (of course) isn't what I said. (After all, I've got "secrets" in my desk.) What I <i>actually</i> said was <b>significant</b> secrets cannot be covered up for a great deal of time. <br /><br />If anything is entertaining it is watching the mental gymnastics and ridiculous arguments of the UFO buffs. Circular logic, a complete lack of knowledge about the world around them (which leads to their/your inability to place things in the proper context), strawman arguments, etc, etc. This is why people have such a hard time taking all this seriously.09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46754935751753259322021-07-04T01:38:27.216-07:002021-07-04T01:38:27.216-07:00I should add...anything that is being kept secret ...I should add...anything that is being kept secret for 100 years (and that could be increased) as in the case of the RMS Lancastria must be <i>fairly</i> significant.<br /><br />Watching you trying to wriggle out of your daft statement that secrets can't be kept for 70 years is most entertaining... :-)Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-49935299734218535192021-07-03T17:21:56.314-07:002021-07-03T17:21:56.314-07:00"Significant secret"?
My only point ha..."Significant secret"? <br /><br />My only point has been that if a government wants to keep a secret, secret, then they have been proven to be capable of doing that. RMS Lancastria...etc :-)Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1882953678973879162021-07-03T10:35:37.475-07:002021-07-03T10:35:37.475-07:00I could feast out forever on your ridiculous state...<i>I could feast out forever on your ridiculous statement that secrets can't be kept secret for 70 years...the list is endless, but by total chance I was reading an article on the the sinking of RMS Lancastria during WW2.</i>~Paul Young<br /><br />You still haven't quite figured out the difference between a <b>significant</b> secret and something that doesn't mean very much have you? (What exactly do you feel is being concealed by documents on a WW II ship?) <br /><br />By your logic, every divorce lawyer is sitting on dynamite because he/she has confidential records. (Documents that it would take a court order to unseal.) Just this past year, I tried to get the death certificate of someone I knew that died more than 20 years ago. The state I live in said "no". What big secret will this death certificate reveal? That he was a alien?<br /><br />This is the issue with UFO buffs.....they really don't know what they are looking at. When Stanton Friedman debated Phil Klass on MJ-12 (on the show Nightline) in 1987, I think Ted Koppel said it to Stan as well as anyone could:<br /><br />"I don't know how familiar you are with Washington-I am very familiar with Washington-and I know that it is almost impossible to keep a story of that sort of dimension, without some leak or another filtering out of from some part of the bureaucracy or government establishment over a period of 40 days, let alone 40 years."<br /><br />Exactly right. Nobody is going to risk what Daniel Ellsberg did over some WW II ship....but aliens? That's a different story.09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-83383362471958906342021-07-02T15:27:30.330-07:002021-07-02T15:27:30.330-07:00I could feast out forever on your ridiculous state...I could feast out forever on your ridiculous statement that secrets can't be kept secret for 70 years...the list is endless, but by total chance I was reading an article on the the sinking of RMS Lancastria during WW2.<br /> Files on that incident have been sealed by the UK Official Secrets Act until 2040...AND when the time comes, there's nothing stopping an extension to the sealing of those files. (extension to various secret files are added regularly)<br /><br />So...YET ANOTHER example of secrets being kept from the public, (in this case 81 years and counting) despite efforts to have the files opened. <br /><br />:-)Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-90019352240631141622021-07-02T14:34:15.702-07:002021-07-02T14:34:15.702-07:00Exactly my point. They are successfully kept secre...<i>Exactly my point. They are successfully kept secret. If governments want secrets kept secret then investigators can request FOIA's till the cows come home...but won't get far. Tidbits, on the other hand, get released. </i>~Paul Young<br /><br />Yeah that doesn't work. It's pretty much circular reasoning. We don't know what is being held secret because they are <b>always</b> successful in keeping secrets? Sorry: not true. If that was so, there never would have been things like the Pentagon papers & Watergate and so forth. So far, not one Daniel Ellsberg in 70 years.09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-87714427688689190952021-07-02T01:22:46.135-07:002021-07-02T01:22:46.135-07:00I have repeatedly challenged the UFO buffs (and yo...<i> I have repeatedly challenged the UFO buffs (and you) to name some big secret that was cut lose after 50 or so years. So far....nothing. </i> <br /><br />Exactly my point. They are successfully kept <i>secret</i>. If governments want secrets kept secret then investigators can request FOIA's till the cows come home...but won't get far. Tidbits, on the other hand, get released. <br /><br />:-)Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-40720696238995849552021-07-01T12:56:46.536-07:002021-07-01T12:56:46.536-07:00It's the files that aren't released that a...<i>It's the files that aren't released that are the important ones ..not the tidbits for the minnows.</i>~Paul Young<br /><br />Well the "tidbits" are (in the case of JFK) just about the whole thing. And no big secret has emerged from these releases. <br /><br /><i>So, whether or not you believe certain files to be insignificant...they are still secret and have been kept secret successfully. (In many cases for more than 70 years.)</i>~Paul Young<br /><br />Which is meaningless. I have repeatedly challenged the UFO buffs (and you) to name some big secret that was cut lose after 50 or so years. So far....<b>nothing</b>. <br /><br />The Manhattan Project is the test....and the bad news for the UFO buffs is: it fails it utterly. Almost every Intel insider and credible journalist has said the notion the the US gov has recovered and is concealing ET space craft (for 70 years) is just inconceivable.09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.com